Originally Posted by Ferbose
I just came up with an analogy:
Have one person read out:
And then read this string of numbers
And ask the listener, do you hear a difference?
Of course the listener can hear that 8 sounds different from 7, but who can remember it in this context? It is confusing as hell.
The kind of listening test that is banned from discussion on this forum is also confusing as hell to the ear-brain. So I am going to follow the rule and not discuss it
That really is a great analogy.
Reading the section "10 Biggest Lies in Audio" in issue 26 reveals very plainly the bias of the author(s). I personally can't stand the type that implicitly believes current knowledge (their
knowledge) is at it's peak, everything to be known is known, and that author oozes that type of hubris. I don't have a position on cables, power conditioners, vacuum tubes, feedback, bi-wiring or cd-treatment. That is the definition of scepticism - suspended belief. The Audio Critic doesn't excercise scepticism, he dribbles baseless disbelief as though he is the sole purveyor of Truth. In a number of those 10 "lies", the author contradicts himself or conveniently ignores a (correct) explanation offered earlier.
In "The vacuum tube lie" for example, he doesn't consider the possibility that vacuum tubes may be less susceptible to thermal memory distortion (or some other not widely known or unknown effect) than solid state devices.
In "The listening test lie", he says that ABX critics cite "assorted psychobabble on the subject of aural perception". After calling them "tweakos" and not bothering to present the psycho-acoustic argument credibly and honestly, he doesn't even bother to rebut it as he does with the other, easier to dismiss ones. It just happens to be a perfectly valid argument against often flawed ABX/DBT methods.
In "The golden ear lie" he says it's absolutely not true that a "golden ear" can hear subtleties "the rest of us" (him, presumably) can't. Then he goes on to say that, as in the case of the car mechanic who has learnt the subtleties of sound associated with engine problems, someone can learn how to interpret sound better than another. "You could do it too if you had dealt with as many engines as he has". I laughed at this. How can someone be so daft? Surely this is intentional? Not only is he apparently unaware that it's widely accepted that certain individuals have objectively exceptional hearing (can hear beyond 20Khz), he also doesn't realise the blatantly obvious fact that he's disproved his own argument. The car mechanic learning the aural subtleties of a faulty engine is no different than the audiophile learning the subtleties of Audio Component X. Whether the advantage is by experience or by physiology is irrelevant - an advantage exists, and subtleties can be heard by one individual that are not heard by another. It wouldn't have surprised me if he then went on to say "BUT EARS AREN'T MADE OF GOLD DUHHHHH".
I have no doubt his comments on amps are equally amusing.